Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description's wording aligns with that safety profile. The description adds useful context about the returned contents — ICP score, multiplier contributions, total score — but does not disclose caveats like data freshness, source-specific behavior, or potential absence of signals.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three tight sentences: first states the action and scope, second lists what the breakdown shows, third gives the practical use case. Every sentence earns its place; no filler or repetition exists.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only tool with no output schema, the description does a good job conveying what the agent will receive and why it matters. The only notable gap is the unexplained leadSource parameter, which prevents the description from being fully self-sufficient.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It only indirectly identifies campaignId and leadId through the phrase 'a lead's score in a campaign,' and it entirely fails to explain leadSource, whose 'global' vs 'private' distinction remains ambiguous. The schema's enum and default provide limited structure but not semantic meaning.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get a detailed breakdown of a lead's score in a campaign.' It then enumerates concrete output components (ICP score, signal contributions, multipliers, total score), which makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinct from siblings like get_lead or get_icp_scores.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The final sentence gives a clear usage context: 'Use this to understand why a lead scored high or low.' It does not name alternative tools or explicitly say when not to use it, but the intended scenario is specific enough for an agent to route correctly.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.